Political Radar

`Life and death'

October 7th, 2013

James Hochberg, an attorney and president of the Hawaii Family Advocates, framed the gay marriage debate in a post on the Hawaii Family Advocates website.

He asked supporters to consider participating in a 21-day fast and to pray for those battling gay marriage. He said the consequences of losing are "unthinkable."

This issue is more than a matter of rights and benefits for same sex couples. Passing such a law is destructive to religious liberty, freedom of speech and the very foundation of our democracy. Around the country Christians are being persecuted, harassed, silenced, mocked, robbed of their constitutional rights and unjustly punished in increasing numbers, and the harmful effects on children may be the most grievous consequence. There are many examples of things that have happened in other states and jurisdictions where traditional world views on marriage and human sexuality have been replaced by atheistic/secular values (and what is likely to happen here).

Again, this may very well be our last chance. This issue is truly a matter of life and death – i.e., eternal life and eternal death. Please do your part now, as we will be called to account for this before the Lord. Once again, mahalo nui loa. God bless you all; God bless our State; and God bless our Nation.

14 Responses to “`Life and death'”

  1. innocent observer:

    how about God bless gay couples? they too have constitutional rights. funny how your religion excludes perfectly legal people. 21 day fast? most likely those participation would die without nothing to eat and drink for 21 days. if you birds want to die for what you believe in, then go right ahead.

  2. Manoak:

    James Hochberg seems delusional.

  3. Especially Incognito:

    A Civil War.

    "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

    Actually more than Four Scores and Seven years ago.

    21 days sounds like the end of our America.
    The ceiling has fallen.

  4. Manoak:

    I appreciate Derrick DePledge keeping everyone informed on all sides of political developments here in Hawaii.

    It's a tough job.

  5. BrettK:

    Innocent Observer...The U.S. Constitution has no passage relating to marriage, and SCOTUS in their decision on DOMA did not change the definition of marriage (one man and one women). So this fight by Homosexual community is not about equal rights, not about tolerance, its solely about legitimizing their deviant behavior.

  6. innocent observer:

    brett - the repeal of doma did change the definition of marriage as far as the federal government is concerned. it now allows all legally married couples equal protection under the federal laws dealing with married persons. it is the states that define marriage and those states that have legalized marriage for all couples, such couples have both state and federal rights accorded all married couples. for those states who have yet to legalize marriage for all couples, then the federal laws will not apply to those states, but more and more, states are tending towards legalizing such marriages. it is not legitimizing their behavior, but legalizing their right to marrying. what is deviant when 10 to 15% of people are gay. they were born that way, hence, it is a legitimate behavior whether you like it or not. such people cannot "ungay" themselves.

  7. SUBVET:

    Innocent Observer - Unfortunately you are wrong, all SCOTUS changed was that "Married" homosexuals like "Married" heterosexuals were entitled to the same federal benefits. Secondly the Federal Law applies regardless of which state they live in, if they live in a state that doesn't recognize homosexual marriage then only federal benefits are authorized, if they live in a state that recognizes homosexual marriage then they are entitled to both state and federal benefits.

    Secondly, I disagree that people are born gay, that would suggest that there is something in their DNA that makes them gay, however, its scientific fact that there is no such gene. If it is a "legitimate behavior" as you say then yes it can be changed....people change behaviors all the time. But when behaviors are allowed to manifest over a life time....well like Alinsky stated, if you tell a lie long enough eventually it becomes the truth.

  8. Kolea:


    I challenge you to provide a quote from Alinsky saying "if you tell a lie long enough eventually it becomes the truth." You can't. You may be a victim of the very thing you are saying. The hard right has demonized a caricature of Alinsky and then INTERNALIZED it. So you keep repeating lies and because so many of you repeat them with your rightwing ghetto, you come to believe them to be true.

    But proof me wrong. Provide a passage in Saul Alinsky's writing where he says what you claim he said.

    You "disagree" people are born gay. Not sure why you think that is relevant to their demand for equality. Christians are not "born" as Christians, yet they have a right to practice their beliefs and customs with the full protection of the law. So the right to equality is not dependent upon whether a person "can help" whether they fall into a group.

    I think the fixation on whether being gay "is choice" or not tells us more about the person staking a claim than it does about the science. You are clearly not a scientist, for example. Yet you think this question is important and insist a gay person can resist their gay impulses. Seriously, that sounds like you are projecting your own struggles upon everyone else. If you have chosen to fight against your own attraction to other men, that is your choice and you are welcome to it. A recent study, since you have raised the value of science in this, surveyed a group of men on their attitudes towards homosexuals. They then exposed them to gay pornography and measured their objective bodily responses. They found the group of men most hostile to homosexuals had higher observable levels of arousal than men tolerant of gays.

    As the saying goes, YMMV, but given your insistence that gay behavior is a CHOICE, along with your hostility to legal equality for gays, your own arguments suggest internal discomfort more than a balanced assessment of the arguments for marriage equality. But, as I said. Your mileage may vary.

    But come back with that Alinsky quote, will you?

  9. zzzzzz:

    adjective \-ənt\

    : different from what is considered to be normal or morally correct

    As societal norms change, so does what is considered deviant. Acceptance of same-sex couples, e.g. as evidenced by the increasing number of states legalizing same-sex marriage, suggests same-sex coupling is not deviant.

  10. BrettK:

    Kolea...your right, I got my Communists mixed with my Facists, it was Hitler that made that quote, mahalo!

  11. ohiaforest3400:

    Forgive the haters for they know not what they do.

  12. Kolea:

    BrettK, SubVet,

    I wonder if you understand either "fascist" or "communist." It was not Hitler, but Joseph Goebbels who said (approximately) what you had attributed to Alinsky. It appears you hard a hard time distinguishing the two because they both fall into you "evil boogeyman" category. Easy mistake. One helped Hitler seize power in Germany, launch several HUGE wars of aggression, which led to millions being killed, both through conventional warfare and through systematic campaigns of genocidal extermination. And the other taught community organizers how to fight to gain some control over their neighborhoods when dealing with large corporations, bad landlords and complacent politicians.

    An easy mistake to make. That, combined with your misspelling of "Fascist" should not be construed as evidence you don't know what the heck you are talking about. That would be too harsh a conclusion.

    I will admit, Alinsky does have a scary name. It certainly sounds "communist." Or maybe Jewish. But sinister in any event. Good choice for a boogeyman!

  13. Auto de Fe:

    1. (Insert pro gay marriage comment here)
    2. (Enjoy wave of smugness.)

  14. Especially Incognito:

    Seems someone knows the meaning.

Leave a Reply

By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the Star-Advertiser's TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.